Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be a single paragraph (e.g., delete “The Abstract refers to Figure 1” and delete “Class: D04H1/72”) and limited to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on p. 1, line 21, “Figs. 5-7” should be changed to –Figs. 6-8--, as these are the Prior Art figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “type” which is indefinite. What is the scope of “type”? Claim 1 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. Claim 1 includes the scope wherein the jig includes an air blade even when there is no cusp, which is incorrect. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
1. (Currently Amended) Multi-row coaxial melt-blown
- a distributor (2) configured to be operatively connected to a cassette (10) and including
- at least one main access (20)
- adapted to be placed in fluid passage connection with a main conduit (10a) of said
cassette (10) and
- adapted to convey polymeric fluid and
- a plurality of secondary accesses (21) adapted to be placed in fluid passage connection
each with a respective secondary conduit (10b) of said cassette (10) adapted to convey gas;
- a dispenser (3) in fluid passage connection with said distributor (2), configured to dispense
polymeric filaments from said polymeric fluid and including at least:
- a spinneret (4) adapted to form said polymeric filaments removably constrained to said
distributor (2) and including at least one group (4') in turn including:
- a plurality of acceleration conduits (40) extending parallel to a dispensing
direction (4a) comprising tubes (11) in fluid passage connection with said at least
one main access (20) and configured to distribute said polymeric fluid,
- first holes (41) extending parallel to said dispensing direction (4a), centered with
respect to said acceleration conduits (40) along said dispensing direction (4a) and
configured to house each part of a respective said tube (11),
- second holes (42) extending parallel to said dispensing direction (4a) and adapted
to allow the passage of said gas, and
- a slit (43) extending transversely to said dispensing direction (4a) between said
acceleration conduits (40) and said first holes (41) in fluid passage connection with
said second holes (42), and
- a jig (5)
adapted to receive said gas to guide said polymeric filaments exiting from said
dispenser (3), removably constrained to one or more of said distributor (2) and said
spinneret (4) and
including, for each of said groups (4'), a plurality of third holes (50) centered with
respect to said first holes (41), communicating with said second holes (42) and
configured to house part of said tubes (11) and to allow, at the same time, the
passage of said air or gas around said tubes (11);
characterized in that
- said spinneret (4) further comprises one or more chosen from:
- a further said group (4') distinct, separate and side by side with the other said group (4')
and
- at least one cusp (4") side by side with said group (4') and comprising at least one main
outlet (40a) configured to convey said polymeric fluid parallel to said dispensing direction
(4a);
and in that if there is a cusp (4")
- said spinneret (4) further comprises a pair of secondary outlets (41a) arranged at opposite sides relative to said cusp (4") and configured to convey said gas towards said jig (5) [[;]] , and
- said jig (5) includes an air blade (52) defining an outlet (52a) in fluid passage connection with
said secondary outlets (41a) and developing parallel to said dispensing direction (4a) at said main outlet (40a) [[,]] ; and
- said plant (1) comprises a transfer device (6) configured to place in fluid passage connection at
least
- a said secondary access (21) with two opposite ends of said slit (43) of [[a]] the other said group (4') and
- another said secondary access (21) with two opposite ends of said slit (43) of the further said group (4') or with said pair of secondary outlets (41a).
Claim 2 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
2. (Currently Amended) Plant (1) according to Claim 1, wherein said distributor (2) comprises a
plurality of main accesses (20) and said transfer device (6) is configured to place in fluid passage
connection a respective the other said group (4') and another said main access (20) with said acceleration conduits (40) of the further said group (4') or with said main outlet (40a).
Claim 4 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
4. (Currently Amended) Plant (1) according to Claim 3, wherein said transfer device (6) comprises at least one main inlet (60) in fluid passage connection with said main access (20), a plurality of main branches (61) all in fluid passage connection with said main inlet (60) and each with said acceleration conduits (40) of a respective said group (4') and/or a respective said main outlet (40a), a plurality of secondary inlets (62) each in fluid passage connection with a respective said secondary access (21), and a plurality of pairs of secondary branches (63); wherein in each pair said secondary branches (63) is in fluid passage connection with a respective said secondary inlet (62) and each of said secondary branches (63) is in fluid passage connection with a respective end of said slit (43) of [[a]] the respective said group (4') and/or a respective secondary outlet (41a) of [[a]] said pair of secondary outlets (41a).
Claim 5 recites “said main inlet”, “said secondary inlet” and “said secondary branch” which lack antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests changing claim 5 to be dependent upon claim 4.
Claim 7 recites “said main branches”, “said secondary inlet”, “said secondary branches”, “said main inlet” and “said secondary inlet” which lack antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests changing claim 7 to be dependent upon claim 4.
Claim 8 recites “a longitudinal plane” which lacks antecedent basis clarity because it is not clear if it refers to the previously mentioned one or to a new one. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “[[a]] the longitudinal plane”.
Claim 9 recites “said main direction” which lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “said longitudinal direction”.
Claims not listed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
For further examiner purposes, the scope of the claims are read in light of the suggested Examiner amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) in view of Mende (US 4,826,415).
Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) a multi-row coaxial melt-blown type plant (figs. 1-18; [0038]-[0092]) comprising:
- a distributor 36 configured to be operatively connected to a cassette 28 and including
- at least one main access 38
- adapted to be placed in fluid passage connection with a main conduit 30 of said
cassette 28 and
- adapted to convey polymeric fluid 20 ([0032], polymerization pulp; [0089], cellulose can be combined with polymer to make bicomponent fibers/filaments) and
- a plurality of secondary accesses 40 adapted to be placed in fluid passage connection
each with a respective secondary conduit 32 of said cassette 28 adapted to convey gas 34;
- a dispenser 42 in fluid passage connection with said distributor 36, configured to dispense
polymeric filaments from said polymeric fluid and including at least:
- a spinneret 42, 52 adapted to form said polymeric filaments constrained to said
distributor 36 (fig. 2; [0044] member 42 secured to block 36) and including at least one group in turn including:
- a plurality of acceleration conduits 44 extending parallel to a dispensing
direction (fig. 2) comprising tubes 46 in fluid passage connection with said at least
one main access 38 and configured to distribute said polymeric fluid,
- first holes extending parallel to said dispensing direction (fig. 2), centered with
respect to said acceleration conduits 44 along said dispensing direction (fig. 2) and
configured to house each part of a respective said tube 46 (fig. 2; [0044], each nozzle (conduit) 44 is shown as a tube 46; as shown in fig. 2, the tubes 46 extend into spinneret 42 within first holes (not labeled but shown in fig. 2) which first holes house part of the tubes 46),
- second holes 58 extending parallel to said dispensing direction and adapted
to allow the passage of air or gas (figs. 2, 5; [0048]-[0049], openings (holes) 58 are larger than tubes 46 allowing passage of gas), and
- a slit 50 extending transversely to said dispensing direction (fig. 2) between said
acceleration conduits 44 and said first holes (which house tubes 46 mentioned above) in fluid passage connection with said second holes 56 (figs. 2), and
- a jig 60
adapted to receive said gas to guide said polymeric filaments exiting from said
dispenser 42, constrained to one or more of said distributor 36 and said
spinneret 42, 52 ([0044], [0048], [0050], plate (jig) 60 is secured (constrained) to plate 52 which is secured to member 42 (spinneret 42, 52) which is secured to block (distributor) 36) and
including, for each of said groups, a plurality of third holes 62 centered with
respect to said first holes (fig. 2), communicating with said second holes 58 (fig. 2) and
configured to house part of said tubes 46 (fig. 2) and to allow, at the same time, the
passage of said air or gas around said tubes 46 (fig. 2; [0052]);
characterized in that
- said plant comprises a transfer device 36 configured to place in fluid passage connection at
least
- a said secondary access 40 with two opposite ends of said slit 50 of a said group (fig. 2).
However, Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) does not disclose
the spinneret 42, 52 removably constrained to said distributor 36; OR
the jig 60 removably constrained to one or more of said distributor 36 and said spinneret 42, 52; OR
said spinneret further comprises one or more chosen from:
- a further said group distinct, separate and side by side with the other said group
and
- at least one cusp side by side with said group and comprising at least one main
outlet configured to convey said polymeric fluid parallel to said dispensing direction,
and in that if there is a cusp
- said spinneret further comprises a pair of secondary outlets arranged at opposite sides
relative to said cusp and configured to convey said gas towards said jig, and
- said jig includes an air blade defining an outlet in fluid passage connection with
said secondary outlets and developing parallel to said dispensing direction at said main
outlet; OR
the transfer device 36 configured to place in fluid passage connection another said secondary access with two opposite ends of said slit of another said group or with said pair of secondary outlets.
Mende (US 4,826,415) discloses a melt blown plant (abstract) including elements which are removably fixed to each other mechanically by clamping or by screws which enable the elements to be demounted and remounted (col. 7, lines 3-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the plant of Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) wherein the spinneret is removably constrained to said distributor and wherein the jig is removably constrained to one or more of said distributor and said spinneret because, as mentioned above, Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) discloses that these plant elements are secured together and because it is known in the art to removably fix (secure) plant elements together, as disclosed by Mende (US 4,826,415). Such modifications would provide an alternative configuration for fixing plant elements together known to be operable in the art and would enable the elements to be demounted and remounted. Furthermore, note that Mende (US 4,826,415) discloses making fibers from thermoplastic resin (col. 4, lines 33-46).
Mende (US 4,826,415) further discloses a melt blown plant (abstract) including a spinneret with one group including tubes 3 for forming fibers (figs. 1-3); and alternatively that the melt blown plant can include a further group distinct, separate and side by side with the other said group (fig. 5; col. 4, line 32, to col. 5, line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the spinneret with a further said group distinct, separate and side by side with the other said group, as disclosed by Mende (US 4,826,415), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration capable of forming multiple groups of fibers. In view of having a plurality of said groups in the plant, as mentioned above, it would have been obvious to further modify the transfer device to be configured to place in fluid passage connection another said secondary access with two opposite ends of said slit of another said group.
As to claim 3, Mende (US 4,826,415) further discloses a distributor/transfer device configured to place in fluid passage connection a main access 11 with acceleration conduits 3 of each of said group (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to further modify the transfer device to be configured to place in fluid passage connection said main access with said acceleration conduits of each of said group, as disclosed by Mende (US 4,826,415), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the plant known to be operable in the art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) in view of Mende (US 4,826,415) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Rossillon et al. (US 5,863,565).
Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) and Mende (US 4,826,415) do not disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Rossillon et al. (US 5,863,565) a melt-blown plant (figs. 1-2; col. 2, line 65, to col. 4, line 3) including a distributor/transfer device 10, wherein said distributor 10 comprises a plurality of main accesses 14 and said transfer device 10 is configured to place in fluid passage connection a respective said main access 14 with conduits 16 of one group and another said main access with said conduits 16 of another said group (fig. 2 shows a main access 14 in fluid passage connection with acceleration conduits 16 of both groups; alternatively, fig. 1 shows a plurality of main accesses 14, each main access 14 in fluid passage connection with a respective conduit 16 of a respective group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the plant wherein said distributor comprises a plurality of main accesses and said transfer device is configured to place in fluid passage connection a respective said main access with said acceleration conduits of one said group and another said main access with said acceleration conduits of another said group, as disclosed by Rossillon et al. (US 5,863,565), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the plant known to be operable in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) in view of Mende (US 4,826,415) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Angelico (US 2022/0403556).
Brown et al. (US 2009/0258099) and Mende (US 4,826,415) do not disclose the limitations of claim 10.
Angelico (US 2022/0403556) discloses a melt-blown plant (abstract) including a spinneret 2, 3, wherein said spinneret 2, 3 comprises at least one seat (not labeled but shown in figs. 1-4) configured to house at least one filter 25 and arranged adjacent to a distributor 5 (figs. 1-4; [0039]-[0066])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the plant wherein said spinneret comprises at least one seat configured to house at least one filter and arranged adjacent to said distributor, as disclosed by Angelico (US 2022/0403556), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the plant known to be operable in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest, the plant, as recited by claims 4-9, particularly wherein said transfer device comprises at least one main inlet in fluid passage connection with said main access, a plurality of main branches all in fluid passage connection with said main inlet and each with said acceleration conduits of a respective said group and/or a respective said main outlet (40a), a plurality of secondary inlets each in fluid passage connection with a respective said secondary access, and a plurality of pairs of secondary branches; wherein in each pair said secondary branches is in fluid passage connection with a respective said secondary inlet and each of said secondary branches is in fluid passage connection with a respective end of said slit of the respective said group and/or a respective secondary outlet of said pair of secondary outlets. As mentioned above, in view of the 112 issues, for further examiner purposes, the scope of the claims are read in light of the suggested Examiner amendments. Thus, this indication of allowability is based on the scope of the claims being read in light of the suggested Examiner amendments above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights